So first, the premise goes, Bush (and his backers) need an excuse for war in Iraq (or possibly to allow draconian laws restricting freedom to be passed). So they create (or pick back up) a terrorist organization (headed by one of Bush's friends, Bin-Laden) and use it as a red-herring to cover up a black-op (conducted by ???) where 3 of america's buildings and ~3000 of it's citizens (many of which are financial big-guys, etc) are destroyed/killed, and the Pentagon heavily damaged. "They" tricked the suicide bombers (and all the passengers) into thinking they were flying the planes, but in reality they were controlled by (???) because the suicide bombers could not have flown the planes due to there poor flight skills. The planes crashing into the towers were the cue for hundreds of shaped explosive and/or thermite charges to go off in a time sequence (apparently witnessed by fire chiefs and others, one beam possibly caught with thermite falling from it on video) that caused a sudden failure of every 10th floor, causing the building to free-fall to the ground. All bits of evidence (melted beams, etc) were hidden before and after the event (explaining the quick clean-up), and all persons involved were silenced 99.999% (at least for the last 5 years). Now, however, there are persons who are about to leak the story. Suddenly afraid (there's less than 2 years, and the Prez is a lame-duck now so his power is a fraction of what it was just after 911), "They" are powerless to prevent this disclosure of information (or are allowing it to leak out now, because even though it is close to-the-truth the following smear campaign will forever discredit anyone who follow this path as a nut-case, just like project blue-book did for UFO's)

Did I miss anything?

Oh yeah, and since "They" framed the whole thing, they had to fabricate a story for the witnesses testifying against Moussaoui (but got caught).

So to prevent back-lash, I guess martial law and round-up of all trouble makers (starting with those of us here on Eplaya, no doubt) before '08?

How's that for some Fear! (tying it all back into this years theme)

...I do concur, however, that bldg.7 DOES look like it was brought down by controlled demo, and it does seem difficult to believe it could have been rigged in the hours between the initial crash and the collapse of bldg.7 (for me the most credible thing posted so far...)

Oh yeah, and all those other buildings cited were post-beam construction (traditional high-rise). World Trade was radically different (hollow-tube and elevator core / lightweight trusses. I still maintain that there are likely failure mechanisms in such a structure that do not exist in post-beam steel structures (although I cannot put them into words due to my lack of training).

"The famous Twin Towers of the WTC were among the first high rises to use a tube structure, rather than the frame structure used in earlier skyscrapers. Indeed, they were the first very tall buildings designed without any masonry at all. Tube structure buildings are made of a rigid hollow tube of closely packed steel columns, with floor trusses that extend from the perimeter of the building to its core. The tube structure of modern skyscrapers allows them to withstand higher winds. It also eliminates the need for interior columns, allowing the use of more floor space.

While most skyscrapers built since the 1970s also have the tube structure, the Twin Towers were unique in other ways. Light floor trusses had been used in high rise buildings before, but not to span as much as 18m (60 feet), as they did in the towers. The core and elevator system of the building were also unusual. Because it was feared the pressure created by the buildings' high speed elevators might cause conventional elevator shafts to buckle, engineers used a plaster board system fixed to a steel core to house the elevators. This made the shafts more flexible, though also more flammable.

Cause of the collapse

There is no simple answer to the question of why the Twin Towers collapsed. Engineers, academics and demolition experts have not found agreement on the subject.

Charles Clifton, structural engineer at the New Zealand Heavy Engineering Research Association, believes 'the impact damage, not the severity of the fire was the principal cause of the ultimate collapse'. This view is shared by Gregory Fenves, professor of civil engineering at the University of California.

However, Eduardo Kausel, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), believes that fire was primarily responsible. So does Robert McNamara, president of the US structural engineering firm, McNamara and Salvia.

But Oral Buyukozturk, another professor of civil and environmental engineering at MIT and Mark Loizeaux, president of US demolition company Controlled Demolition Incorporated, suspect a combination of factors caused the towers to fall.

Impact

When the planes hit the towers, they inflicted major damage on the structure of the buildings. As many as 40 vertical columns at the perimeter of each building were knocked out. It's likely that the impact damaged columns at the core of the building too – preventing people from escaping down stairwells, which were in the core. However, the towers were – initially at least – able to withstand this damage. Indeed, the force with which the planes hit the buildings was 95% of the wind load which they were designed to withstand.

What is not known for sure, is how much damage the planes inflicted on the buildings internally. Writing in New Steel Construction, Charles Clifton argues that 'having penetrated the perimeter frames, the planes would have done much more than just stripping the fire protection off the columns... The effect would have been to completely shatter and eliminate large areas of floor slabs and many of the internal supporting columns... leaving the rest vulnerable to fire attack.'

It's important to note that the terrorists had either done their homework or were very lucky: they struck the towers at precisely the right height. Had the planes hit the buildings any higher up, it's likely that the weight of the floors above the crash site might not have been sufficient to bring the building down. And lower down on the building, the vertical columns are thicker, and fewer would have been destroyed by the impact.

Fire

The terrorists certainly made sure they hijacked planes which had plenty of fuel on board. A Boeing 767 at the start of a long haul flight would be carrying around 24,000 gallons of fuel.

although much of the fireproofing was removed on impact, it isn't clear whether it would have been able to withstand an aviation fuel fire anyway. The fireproofing had been designed to protect the building from the type of fire expected in an office building: one fueled by paper, desks, and other office furniture. But this fire was different. The temperature of hydrocarbon fires rises much more rapidly and reaches much higher levels than most building fires. It may have reached 1200 to 1500ºC. Water sprinklers are relatively ineffective in combating a hydrocarbon fire, which is usually fought with chemical foam.

The structure of the WTC towers is crucial when considering the impact of the fire. The towers, being lightweight and devoid of concrete, were difficult to protect from fire. The weak links were the steel floor trusses – they spanned considerable distances relative to their thin construction, meaning they would have heated up quickly.

The fact that the offices were open plan increased the fire hazard. The floors of the towers spanned 40,000 square feet, yet fire chiefs argue that it's impossible to fight a fire in an open plan floor space of half that square footage.

Column collapse

The remaining undamaged columns were capable of bearing considerable loads, but to some extent depended on support from the floors to do so. Once the floors had succumbed to the heat of the fire, the integrity of the building was threatened. Core columns were not only bearing extra loads, but were also subject to intensely high temperatures. Once they began to buckle, the crash site floor collapsed onto the floor underneath. The effect was similar to dropping one multi-storey building onto another: each floor collapsed onto the one below, and so on. Once this domino effect had begun, it took seconds for the towers to be reduced to rubble.

Design faults?

Opinions are divided on the issue of whether other buildings could have survived an attack such as those of 11 September. Charles Clifton says that 'the very light and open structure probably made the buildings more vulnerable to collapse from the aircraft impact than would have been the case for a heavier structural system'. However, some architects argue that an old style frame building would have collapsed immediately, and that the tube structure saved thousands of lives.

However, fire chiefs and structural engineers agree that the fireproofing which existed was insufficient. KAFKO, a mineral-based fireproofing applied to the steel columns of the building, was difficult to apply to the floor trusses. Leslie Robertson, the engineer largely responsible for the structure of the Twin Towers, has admitted that although a plane crash was considered when designing the building, aviation fuel explosion and fire were not. This, believes Eduardo Kausel, is 'a key design omission.'"

Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

dragonfly Jafe wrote:...thanks all for the conspiracy theory education on 911.

So first, the premise goes, Bush (and his backers) need an excuse for war in Iraq (or possibly to allow draconian laws restricting freedom to be passed).

Yes sums it up nicely and the Draconian laws have been useless for catching any terrorist yet but 19 drug dealers have been rounded up!

dragonfly Jafe wrote:So they create (or pick back up) a terrorist organization (headed by one of Bush's friends, Bin-Laden) and use it as a red-herring to cover up a black-op (conducted by ???) where 3 of America's buildings and ~3000 of it's citizens (many of which are financial big-guys, etc) are destroyed/killed, and the Pentagon heavily damaged.

It has been done before! False Flags In History have been covered.

dragonfly Jafe wrote:"They" tricked the suicide bombers (and all the passengers) into thinking they were flying the planes, but in reality they were controlled by (???)

Well to repeat myself I have not postulated a theory in whole or part but I do suspect it may of been allowed to happen much like I believe Pearl Harbor may of been allowed to happen. And just to note we have been able to remotely control aircraft since the 1950's and with today's tech could pull it off very easy you may recall seeing a video about ten years ago of a large heavy airliner remotely being flown into a large block of concrete to test fuel tanks? and UAV's are used all over the modern battlefield including Helicopters! Which leads me to wonder why we do not put this tech in all commercial aircraft to auto land them in a Highjacking?

dragonfly Jafe wrote: because the suicide bombers could not have flown the planes due to there poor flight skills. The planes crashing into the towers were the cue for hundreds of shaped explosive and/or thermite charges to go off in a time sequence (apparently witnessed by fire chiefs and others, one beam possibly caught with thermite falling from it on video) that caused a sudden failure of every 10th floor, causing the building to free-fall to the ground.

Is it impossible that "they" saw it coming and rigged the buildings?

dragonfly Jafe wrote: All bits of evidence (melted beams, etc) were hidden before and after the event (explaining the quick clean-up), and all persons involved were silenced 99.999% (at least for the last 5 years).

Most of the evidence was taken away buried or shipped to China that is a fact that bothers me.

dragonfly Jafe wrote: Now, however, there are persons who are about to leak the story. Suddenly afraid (there's less than 2 years, and the Prez is a lame-duck now so his power is a fraction of what it was just after 911), "They" are powerless to prevent this disclosure of information (or are allowing it to leak out now, because even though it is close to-the-truth the following smear campaign will forever discredit anyone who follow this path as a nut-case, just like project blue-book did for UFO's)

The core group of insiders would not be that large remember the convenient war games being conducted on the same day with the same scenario would of led many to participate without even knowing it.

dragonfly Jafe wrote:Did I miss anything?

Not much at least you took the time to ponder the questions look at both sides and do some very concise research ..

dragonfly Jafe wrote:Oh yeah, and since "They" framed the whole thing, they had to fabricate a story for the witnesses testifying against Moussaoui (but got caught).

Well this part is true all over the News right now FBI coached the witnesses to avoid exposing what they knew ahead of time apparently a Federal judge is concerned enough that the trial may end in a mistrial or reduced sentence you cannot un-taint a witness

dragonfly Jafe wrote:So to prevent back-lash, I guess martial law and round-up of all trouble makers (starting with those of us here on Eplaya, no doubt) before '08?How's that for some Fear! (tying it all back into this years theme)

I heard nothing about a round up apparently we our going to herd ourselves into a remote desert and then be sent into the future for reprogramming I fear!

dragonfly Jafe wrote:...I do concur, however, that bldg.7 DOES look like it was brought down by controlled demo, and it does seem difficult to believe it could have been rigged in the hours between the initial crash and the collapse of bldg.7 (for me the most credible thing posted so far...)

We totally agree here looks like a perfect controlled demo!

dragonfly Jafe wrote:Oh yeah, and all those other buildings cited were post-beam construction (traditional high-rise). World Trade was radically different (hollow-tube and elevator core / lightweight trusses. I still maintain that there are likely failure mechanisms in such a structure that do not exist in post-beam steel structures (although I cannot put them into words due to my lack of training).

Reading your previous post apparently you have more training than I sir but with that said the construction was supposed to be stronger than traditional and the hollow tubes were not light conduit very massive and I did not see any on site or in any pictures on the net that shows them failing, bent, or collapsed just cut clean like the pictures I posted I should mention for clarity that I trust those were cut on the site for transport which explains the burnt edges on the far end what I never understood was the clean cut (not torch or Thermite) ends I saw on the actual pile as if they had been stacked for 110 stories end to end without tying them together! I saw no broken welds, bolt holes, brackets nothing so that does lead me to question if there were design/construction flaws but they were strong apparently falling from great height without bending I cannot reference it right now but I also saw a old ASTM report from the original building specs for these columns that called for some very special steel which actually had a melting point that was way over 2000ºF degrees and would start to soften at around 1500ºF I understand there was only one place in the world that could make the columns in Japan. oh ok I found this quote from NIST site "Sunder says that about 250 chemical analyses indicate that most of the perimeter columns are "higher-strength micro-alloyed steels...or chromium-molybdenum steels that would meet U.S. specifications for heat-resisting steels." Most of the columns were made from steel from Yawata Steel, which is now Nippon Steel." Another NIST quote admits that they do not even have all the evidence needed it seems "NIST has run a variety of tests so far, including analyses on some of the more than 200 pieces of WTC steel it now has. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead investigator in the WTC probe, says officials have located pieces representing nine of the 12 steel strengths used in the perimeter columns and nine of the 11 strengths used for the spandrel beams.Also the "official" NIST report hardly even mentions the inside columns and shows a completely misleading diagram of the building on the NIST website which makes it appear the outside walls were the support structure for the building and shows very small interior core columns.

dragonfly Jafe wrote:...For any that have made it this far, here is an opposing viewpoint:

"The famous Twin Towers of the WTC were among the first high rises to use a tube structure, rather than the frame structure used in earlier skyscrapers. Indeed, they were the first very tall buildings designed without any masonry at all. Tube structure buildings are made of a rigid hollow tube of closely packed steel columns, with floor trusses that extend from the perimeter of the building to its core. The tube structure of modern skyscrapers allows them to withstand higher winds. It also eliminates the need for interior columns, allowing the use of more floor space.

While most skyscrapers built since the 1970s also have the tube structure, the Twin Towers were unique in other ways. Light floor trusses had been used in high rise buildings before, but not to span as much as 18m (60 feet), as they did in the towers. The core and elevator system of the building were also unusual. Because it was feared the pressure created by the buildings' high speed elevators might cause conventional elevator shafts to buckle, engineers used a plaster board system fixed to a steel core to house the elevators. This made the shafts more flexible, though also more flammable.

Cause of the collapse

There is no simple answer to the question of why the Twin Towers collapsed. Engineers, academics and demolition experts have not found agreement on the subject.

Charles Clifton, structural engineer at the New Zealand Heavy Engineering Research Association, believes 'the impact damage, not the severity of the fire was the principal cause of the ultimate collapse'. This view is shared by Gregory Fenves, professor of civil engineering at the University of California.

However, Eduardo Kausel, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), believes that fire was primarily responsible. So does Robert McNamara, president of the US structural engineering firm, McNamara and Salvia.

But Oral Buyukozturk, another professor of civil and environmental engineering at MIT and Mark Loizeaux, president of US demolition company Controlled Demolition Incorporated, suspect a combination of factors caused the towers to fall.

Impact

When the planes hit the towers, they inflicted major damage on the structure of the buildings. As many as 40 vertical columns at the perimeter of each building were knocked out. It's likely that the impact damaged columns at the core of the building too – preventing people from escaping down stairwells, which were in the core. However, the towers were – initially at least – able to withstand this damage. Indeed, the force with which the planes hit the buildings was 95% of the wind load which they were designed to withstand.

What is not known for sure, is how much damage the planes inflicted on the buildings internally. Writing in New Steel Construction, Charles Clifton argues that 'having penetrated the perimeter frames, the planes would have done much more than just stripping the fire protection off the columns... The effect would have been to completely shatter and eliminate large areas of floor slabs and many of the internal supporting columns... leaving the rest vulnerable to fire attack.'

It's important to note that the terrorists had either done their homework or were very lucky: they struck the towers at precisely the right height. Had the planes hit the buildings any higher up, it's likely that the weight of the floors above the crash site might not have been sufficient to bring the building down. And lower down on the building, the vertical columns are thicker, and fewer would have been destroyed by the impact.

Fire

The terrorists certainly made sure they hijacked planes which had plenty of fuel on board. A Boeing 767 at the start of a long haul flight would be carrying around 24,000 gallons of fuel.

although much of the fireproofing was removed on impact, it isn't clear whether it would have been able to withstand an aviation fuel fire anyway. The fireproofing had been designed to protect the building from the type of fire expected in an office building: one fueled by paper, desks, and other office furniture. But this fire was different. The temperature of hydrocarbon fires rises much more rapidly and reaches much higher levels than most building fires. It may have reached 1200 to 1500ºC. Water sprinklers are relatively ineffective in combating a hydrocarbon fire, which is usually fought with chemical foam.

The structure of the WTC towers is crucial when considering the impact of the fire. The towers, being lightweight and devoid of concrete, were difficult to protect from fire. The weak links were the steel floor trusses – they spanned considerable distances relative to their thin construction, meaning they would have heated up quickly.

The fact that the offices were open plan increased the fire hazard. The floors of the towers spanned 40,000 square feet, yet fire chiefs argue that it's impossible to fight a fire in an open plan floor space of half that square footage.

Column collapse

The remaining undamaged columns were capable of bearing considerable loads, but to some extent depended on support from the floors to do so. Once the floors had succumbed to the heat of the fire, the integrity of the building was threatened. Core columns were not only bearing extra loads, but were also subject to intensely high temperatures. Once they began to buckle, the crash site floor collapsed onto the floor underneath. The effect was similar to dropping one multi-storey building onto another: each floor collapsed onto the one below, and so on. Once this domino effect had begun, it took seconds for the towers to be reduced to rubble.

Design faults?

Opinions are divided on the issue of whether other buildings could have survived an attack such as those of 11 September. Charles Clifton says that 'the very light and open structure probably made the buildings more vulnerable to collapse from the aircraft impact than would have been the case for a heavier structural system'. However, some architects argue that an old style frame building would have collapsed immediately, and that the tube structure saved thousands of lives.

However, fire chiefs and structural engineers agree that the fireproofing which existed was insufficient. KAFKO, a mineral-based fireproofing applied to the steel columns of the building, was difficult to apply to the floor trusses. Leslie Robertson, the engineer largely responsible for the structure of the Twin Towers, has admitted that although a plane crash was considered when designing the building, aviation fuel explosion and fire were not. This, believes Eduardo Kausel, is 'a key design omission.'"

I have many problems with the conclusions that are drawn here from the temperature of fires "rises much more rapidly and reaches much higher levels than most building fires. It may have reached 1200 to 1500 ºC " From what I have understood Jet fuel burns at around 800ºF way to cold to melt steel or soften the special steel.
The other problem I have with this is the presence of the name Mark Loizeaux* on the report on many "Kook" sites I have seen that name apparently he was there on that day and his equipment arrived in a long motorcade within hours of the first hit and subsequently received very large contract for the actual clean-up!
*Mark Loizeaux, president of US demolition company Controlled Demolition Incorporated,

Anyhow your response was very informative and thought out there is so much I do not understand and will probably never know but I will keep a open mind for any answer even the official story line.
Right now I am thinking it is a some part of or a combination of all of these postulations. And I was mostly just posting food for thought so to speak.
My post on this thread should not be interpeted to support the Terrorist's in any way in no scenario I could think of do they escape culpability for their inexcusable actions or fanatical thought process.
I love the United States just not every thing she is doing right now.

See Ya at the Black Rock Detention Center

Bob

Oh wait some more last minute kookieness just for fun no conclusions given..
In 1997, the US Department of Justice and FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency published this self-study course with this cover. Only the North Tower of the twin towers of the World Trade Center has a mast.

On September 11, 2001, the target was struck. Four years prior someone in our government must have known the target. Or perhaps this was just a coincidence. What do you think?

"We get all kinds of manuals here at my agency, this one came from FEMA. Notice the date on Emergency Response to Terror - June 1999. After 9-11, we got a notice from FEMA to tear the covers off of all of these." Harry Hagedorn

I hot linked to the picture to lazy to upload it I think my part in this is done for now
SeeYa all on the Playa

...it seems that the design relied on these very strong vertical columns standing perfectly on end. The floors connected these columns preventing them from leaning out-of-vertical. Once the floors melted/burned away (they were apparently thinner than usual for buildings of this sort), nothing was left holding the columns vertical.

One way of visualizing this is to take a bundle of unsharpened pencils (say 50 or so). Wrap a rubber band around the bundle so that they are tightly held. Now place a stack of books on top of the column of pencils. As long as the pencils are vertical, they will resist the load of the books. Now, snip (or burn through with a lighter) the rubber band.

That is what I am visualizing happened, more or less.

I cannot say why there were clean ends to the beams, I do not know the construction details...perhaps the floor trusses also attached the beam ends to one another (this is purely a guess)?

Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.

The load design of the floors at the columns were something to the order of (as I remember) 110 tons, divvied over the support system (trusses supporting the floors over the (47?) columns holding it all up). Plus, the exterior of the towers were also structural members. (Remember these were aluminum, not steel - this weighs into the equation in a sec!)

Now... I can actually envision what would have caused the buildings to come down. Floor 70, weakened by the loss of some of the internal structure, etc., due to the hit (and we do know that a jet aircraft, regardless if cargo or passenger, hit the building) weakened, and losing the ALUMINUM wupport from the external walls, starts to "sag", buckle, and give way.

Looking at the construction details of the WTC towers (I have magazines and a couple books, done in the 60's, detailing this stuff) the floor rated load was (as I remember) 110 tons per floor static. Say a floor of the tower weighs in at, let's be superconservative, and say 25 tons 25 tons x the 30 floors above 70 s... 750 tons. All it took was that 70th floor to collapse - pancake - into the floor below. Wth the 30 floors of mass with it. That's 750 tons hitting a floor with a max load rating (will collapse when subject to a weight over) of 110 tons) and it drops. You've just added another 25 tons to the load dropping, and it goes - poppa, poppa, poppa, each floor adding it's 25 ton load to the one before.

The majority of the weight was concrete. When it's jarred, it pulverizes. Think of a shitload of concrete chunks all intergrinding, mixing, with all that other stuff. Talk about a grinder... with 750 tons of floor hitting it. Pow. They say nothing survived - no shit.

Once one of those floors went, it would have been impossible to hold back the tide of that building coming down, whether or not there were charges inside the building.

The question of the so-called "blast devils" from the windows beow the collapse zone? Remember - the aluminum sides of the WTC were not just decorative aluminum but structural members. The internals of the building would have come apart before the outer casing went (actually a testament of their strength is the building *did* come straight down) and those "devils" were actually internal debris coming out of the blown out (and soon to be crushed) windows as it blew down the center of the collapsing building.

That's the "how WTC 1 & 2 dropped" spiel. Whether or not there were any charges in that building, once the thing started to go, it was gone. And we knew that if it started to go it would not stop until it was sitting on (or under) Canal St.

***

Now... NONE of this is to debunk the Conspiracy angle, and in fact it looks like nothing but an internal conspiracy - even better than JFK's grassy knoll. Think of the famous "Bush at the school" tape. We've all seen it. Which of the below fits? (You choose)

Someone who was told of what happened and...
(a) was thinking "fuck, some SOB just hit us, we're under attack, we gotta do something" (even if it were to get the kids under their desks)...

...or...

(b) Someone who had some clue of what was to transpire, enough to where certain people (now high ranking) told others not to fly, etc., but put it out of their mind until they were told "Mister President: We were just advised - It's Done" and realized they were in WAY over their head all of the sudden...

...or...

(c) was thinking "I told them to start a war, regardless of the cost, to get us into Iraq, but I didn''t think they'd do THIS, aw shit, If I get caught I am so busted..."

Is this what I served my country for? Does this make you a proud American?

What would the Founding Fathers do? Something to ponder...

_______________

Of course, all this is spoof. The Government would never lie to you, nor conspire to work against the constitution or its own people. Can't happen. The president is honest and upright, and has the best intrest of the American People at heart, would never draft an act removing basic liberties and call it Patriot anything, would not restrict peoples freedom of speech or assembly... It would cause the American People to revolt.

...setting back and allowing it to happen (perhaps thru internal beaurocratic friction as stated officially) is completely different than planting bombs...and only stupidity/laziness is needed to explain that, not cold-hearted malice.

in '93 the FBI was supposedly listening to the bombers as they plotted the truck bomb attack. The cell just acted before the FBI beauracracy could react. Allegedly the same thing occured at Oklahoma City with McVeigh and friends (thru their links with white supremacy movements, which the FBI had infiltrated). The Ku Klux Klan history is pretty much the same. And of course virtually everyone has heard of the story of the radar station at Pearl Harbor picking up the incoming Japanese attack planes (and being ignored)...and if history tells us anything, it tells us that absolute power corrupts absolutely. And that our government will at least TRY to infiltrate "terrorist" groups in order to get intel. Of course, once you HAVE infiltrated such a group, what intel justifies blowing your cover?

I can believe such a scenario far more easily than that of someone planting bombs, etc.

110 tons per floor sounds a little low (64mx64m = 4096 square meters, or a floor load of 53lbs per meter square or about 5 lbs per square foot), but I have no figures what-so-ever, so I will defer to yours until I can do some research...

here is an interesting site in the mean time which states an alternative hypothesis;

basically, they show that while the temps probably did not exceed 800 deg. C (as stated here and "proven" by the black-soot fire), and that is not sufficient to melt steel, it does however reduce it's strength by 50%. Still, the towers could take that. But the fire heated one side more than the other, which resulted in a differential expansion from one side to the other (heated objects expand). The heat differential caused the steel beams to expand at different rates, which then tore the building apart internally.

Watch the video of the towers collapsing. I clearly see the structures failing at the fire level first, then the floors above that falling down (starting as 1 mass, then disintegrating as it falls), then the rest of the building below the fire collapsing from the fire level downwards.

And as BBS says, a 7:1 overload will collapse something pretty fast! Especially if you have lost 50% of your initial strength due to heating and an unknown % due to lost columns.

Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.

First to answer BBS I select answer B.2 beta
Second if you have the books/documents you speak of I think they have value to scholars and science everyone seems to be saying actual blueprints/drawing etc are very rare. Which seems hard to fathom projects much smaller that I have been on are buried in avalanche of documents

I saw pancaking in my mind on that day just like anyone else it has been since then that certain things have bothered me.

According to BYU professors (or possibly some other PHD know it all with credentials and a cozy retirement) the building fell at free fall speed as if the legs had been kicked out of it this timing was all very scientific and I could find the link if anyone cares but the point was that a pancaking multiple vehicular accident building would fall slower more like a vertical domino effect especially in the initial phases. Not enough poppa, poppa, poppa But I admit I cannot discern this watching the video of WTC 1 and 2

The squibs or blast devils do look like demolition but I have always thought with that much shit falling with that much force could blow shit out everywhere and with pressure and force thru voids/ducts ahead of the hell breaking loose above but there is video available of firefighters describing multiple demo charges going off prior to and during collapse.

The ground floor window glass being blown out at ground level and testimony from witnesses of explosions below ground at the very bottom this includes Maintenance people and firefighters one of the building guys said the basement explosions knocked over a 50 ton press in the basement explosions coming up elevator shafts from below and there is video/photo evidence of rising white smoke from below ground how was this caused by airplanes hitting 80 floors above?

The destruction of evidence just boggles my mind they kept screaming at people with camera's that it was a crime scene no pictures allowed?Taking cameras and film away at gunpoint! I was allowed to use my 0 LUX video cam only for rescue work(lowering down holes) and FEMA engineers were not allowed into ground zero for study just a quick cursory look and of course all the real evidence being trucked away in guarded convoy's with GPS tracking and then sold to China or buried all very quickly when as this ever occurred in modern history? and no study by TSB? this happened once before TSB was not allowed to study TWA flight 800 the one shot down out of Long Island I mean blew up without a bomb. Hell CHP can not even clear a fatal Multiple vehicle road scene that fast!

The lack of Black boxes or not The government say's no black boxes found! A firefighter on a ATV and assigned as a gopher states he helped transport three of them for the FBI. I remember posters with descriptions and pictures of Black boxes(actually bright orange) all over GZ where did they go? It is inconceivable to me that they did not recover them at all Hell I would of fell for the no recoverable data line before none at all!

I can tell you everything was pulverized into a fine wet dust no large concete chunks anywhere just large steel pieces, Dust/grit and wet paper everywhere the rebar besides being bent looked brand new as if it had been sandblasted clean!.

Anyhow thanks for the thought provoking and reasonable conclusions you have shared.
Personally I am somewhere just past BBS's answer B This thread came along right after I watched the Loose Change 2nd edition video which has some bad points in it but some very thought provoking ones too! Kinda made me slightly pissed off too!

Now should we discuss why the cruise missle hit the only hardened and unoccupied side of the Pentagon? why did they mark the path in chalk ahead of time was that a new guidance system? Or the lack of a Airplane and bodies in Penn? Actually I should get back to my Thematic Art on the Apokiliptika thread I hope they have missed my contributions!

Where I work, our main concern on a fire is the steel weakening and concrete damage. Of course, that gasoline tanker burning merrily won't melt the deck... but it *will* weaken the steel structure *and* cause the concrete to fail. The concrete is a stiffener... and if the steel (under pressure) no longer has the stiffening spacers between the beams, and the steel itself is weakened... And down she goes.

And... like our bridge... the towers - in fact, most highrise buildings - are Steel, Concrete, with some Gypsum and Glass added....

We keep track of where fires have occured on the bridge to make sure they aren't weakened to the point of failure. I have also seen how a relatively minor fire (diesel fuel) can cause steel under pressure to buckle. Since K1 and D2 are pretty similar, I can see how a K1 fire could do that kind of damage.

Plus... the crumbling concrete would change the load dynamics - even crumbled, concrete falling to a floor below could cause a floor overload.

**********

Intresting some of the responses on this thread, tho... kind of like a dis-info campaign trying desparately to shut down the exchange of ideas on this. Good thing, too - enough people get to thinking, and the word gets out... what then?? >gasp<

Remember the words of Colonel Jessup in the movie "A few good men"? Plagarzed and twisted for your entertainment...

The scriptwriter, writing for the part of Colonel Nathan Jessup in the aforementioned movie, had not wrote: You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, I want us on that wall, I need us on that wall. We abuse words like honor, code, loyalty. We abuse these words as the backbone of a life spent defending ourselves. We use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to an American who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way...

(For entertainment value only. The above posts were written as fictional content for entertainment value only, and in no way implies the US Government or any of it's agents in complicity to the terrorist acts which shook the country on 9-11. God Bless America. Remember our Heroes. United we Stand. )

placing my ISP in Northern Illinois, a long way from Reno, Nevada, from where HughMungus hails. Check with Netsource, and they will tell you that they have no dial-ups outside of our area - and yet we have you, on another thread, claiming to have found evidence that I and HughMungus were one and the same. I think that's remarkable.

"Arabs that hate our freedom took box cutters, then hijacked 4 airplanes, outsmarted our military, flew loop d loops for nearly two hours in the most protected air space in the world, caused histories first 3 sky scrapers to ever completely collapse. They then caused another airplane to vaporize. Not melt into a molten puddle of steel mind you but actually boil away and evaporate blown off with the breeze. Then for an encore they turned up alive in Saudi Arabia.
Now either that is one hell of a days work for Arabs with box cutters or someone is not being forthright with us. Unfortunately there is considerable evidence for the latter. Understanding the elementary physics in why "The Pancake Theory" can not possibly be true is one of several common sense pieces to this puzzle called 911. Inexperienced pilots finding and then flying into buildings because they hate our freedom, the lack of a military response, the lack of F15 jet fighters, the presidents unusual behavior, impossible to make cell phone calls from 35,000 feet, the towers collapsing totally and symmetrically like a fourth of July sparkler burning to the ground".
If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.

spectabillis- From another thread wrote:Ok, as far as I can tell you are not HughM. The only socks I see under your account are ... Traveller, Observer, and Dustbuddy.

ROTFL Busted Buddy!Sometimes you get what you beg for! There is a God! And he is called Spectabillis

Dustbuddy wrote:Any questions?

Nope none at all!

Man I saw that coming I suspected traveller too. and funny thing I tried to get on his board to offer rides from Reno to BM and he locked me out of his rideshare forum weeks ago before dustbuddy existed for no reason before I posted anything, but I was using same screen name this was around the time HughM got chastised for making demands about eplaya ridesharing board looking back it was just a ploy to spam the rideshare board they made.So that is another reason why I also suspect there is a connection between dustbuddy, HughM, traveller and Dr. Cliff posters and the rest of the I hate BM crew.

As far as all that other new Google account/Usenet crap it proves nothing just smoke and mirrors. At most it suggests it took over thirty hours to get somebody to post a Usenet message for them or set up a IP spoof!

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."- Arthur Schopenhaues

I also suspect a new female persona warming up is involved that will go unnamed for now!

rockdad from another thread wrote:If you’re not Hugh you are his twin! Or a relative All this anger! And threats! And Lies just like Hugh! nasty hostile attitude that had caused me to put Hugh on ignore! And then you are proven to be a nit picker that can not get off a simple concept and continue the discussion just like Hugh! You say your putting me on ignore how very funny just like Hugh would like to do except I beat him to it months ago! Your use of terms, wordage, attitude, nit picking, hostility, etc

That's all folks the fat lady just sung!.
Move along now nothing to see here just a bloody corpse....

TTo those who sent me PM's in regards to this I know that I said I would ignore from now on but this was to good to pass up!

If you can not back up a conspiracy theory with irrefutable evidence then it remains a conspiracy theory until you can produce such evidence. Official theories hold no more weight then any other theories until they are backed up with evidence. The fact that you refuse to admit that changes nothing.

I think the most amazing thing about the whole 9/11 conspiracy is how Bush set this whole thing up--hid it from everyone--including the people working in the buildings, somehow managed to secure the whole conspiracy so that no one would ever talk, managed to get his great friends, the Bin Ladens, to agree to take the blame, managed to put sleepers on flight 93 to not only imitate actual passengers voices in phone calls to their loved ones, but happily die to make it look real--and do the same on the plane that hit the Pentagon.

And all in less than 9 months. Incredible--particularly when you consider that he's a proven idiot/alchoholic/coke fiend.

Oh yeah, the crazies are the ones who think this isn't possible. Right

"Life is like a box of razor blades. Sharp, shiny, and good for removing unwanted body hair"

lurker wrote:I think the most amazing thing about the whole 9/11 conspiracy is how Bush set this whole thing up--hid it from everyone--including the people working in the buildings, somehow managed to secure the whole conspiracy so that no one would ever talk, managed to get his great friends, the Bin Ladens, to agree to take the blame, managed to put sleepers on flight 93 to not only imitate actual passengers voices in phone calls to their loved ones, but happily die to make it look real--and do the same on the plane that hit the Pentagon.

And all in less than 9 months. Incredible--particularly when you consider that he's a proven idiot/alchoholic/coke fiend.

Oh yeah, the crazies are the ones who think this isn't possible. Right

You're insane. Bush I set it up while he was in office and timed it so that Clinton could be blamed. The reasons are obvious: (1) it would prevent Bush II from having to focus on important domestic issues, (2) it would cause the price of gas to go up (Bush famly = oil family), (3) gives the military something to do other than plot the overthrow of the Illuminaiti-controlled US government. DUH.

Article related to discussion :
"The FBI agent who arrested Zacarias Moussaoui weeks before Sept. 11 told a federal jury Monday that his own superiors were guilty of "criminal negligence and obstruction" for blocking his attempts to learn whether the terrorist was part of a larger cell about to hijack planes in the United States."

"His suspicions were backed up by Coleen Rowley, then an FBI lawyer in Minneapolis, who in a May 2002 memo to FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III complained that Washington had blocked efforts to determine what Moussaoui was really doing. Rowley is not scheduled to testify during the sentencing phase."

Sockboy is right: everyone knows the 'Distress' thread is used for oblique personal attacks.

No, I didn't say that said thread IS used for oblique personal attacks, which would imply that's what the thread is there for and the only reason for its existence. I said that Spectabillis decided to use it for that purpose; ie. he slipped something in that was basically an intrusion into that thread and I responded in the location in which I was attack, however obliquely.

The two don't mean the same thing at all, but thank you for showing just how much the truth means to you.

This is an exercise in futility, Kinetic. The "personal information" you refer to was posted to Googlegroups, so the mods on ePlaya are quite incapable of removing it. Nor can they keep the Burning Man community from having access to a link to that post, because I made sure to post a copy to Travel to Burning Man, where AntiM, Spectabillis et al. have no authority. For good measure, I've already taken to contacting a number of ePlaya's very angry and public critics, asking if I could post to their forums if my posts are censored on ePlaya. You might be surprised at how many of those critics there are, and some of their pages are doing very well in the search engine rankings. The responses I've been getting have been supportive.

Every piece of information I posted was publicly available, obtained through well known sources available for use by the general public, so regardless of what kind of trouble Rockdad / *** manages to foolishly get himself into, there won't even be so much as a cause for civil action much less criminal prosecution. Public information is public and this has been tested out in the courts, so deal with it. Get as overwrought as you want, and I'm sure you will, but you can't change the fact that your complaint is without legal merit.